So, I'm running a Spanish low cost carrier in R7, and want to open regional routes in the peninsula even though they wont be that profitable. I have no clue of what aircraft type to use, because I'd prefer one similar to a q400, except for the fact that it shall be available in 1990. Sadly, the q400 comes out in 1999.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
immature
An ATR-72-200 would be around the same size, albeit slower. Another option would be a BAE Systems ATP. If you don't mind a little smaller, you could use a Fokker F-50 or a Q300.
CLT, BOS, JFK, LGA, EWR, ALB, BDL, SYR, HPN, EWN, RDU, PHL, ATL, CVG, MCO, DCA, IAD, BWI, MDW, HOU, DFW, PHX, DEN, BZN, FAT, SAN, LAX, BUR, SBA, SFO, SEA, ANC, KOA, MTJ, MBJ, SXM, CUN, PVR, YVR, SJO, JNB, LLW, LGW
A319, A320, A321, A333, A346, B734, B738, B752, B762, CRJ2, CRJ7, CRJ9, E145, E170, E190, DH8B
AWE, AAL, DAL, UAL, SAA, SWA
ATR 72 and BAE ATP are closest in size to the Q400. You could just go with the Q300 and then introduce the Q400 when it is available. That way you have fleet commonality.
Saab 2000, it has the speed and the range, but has lesser seats, though that ain't a problem when you can add more frequencies.
Depeding on availability/the year you are in, the Fokker F100 is very very good also, although it has more seats (122 seats) - but that's a good thing.
Just don't mess with me
15
19
9
2
All good answers above. As for which one, the ATR-72 is in my opinion the best value & most efficient of the larger turboprops in this game.
IRL, I like the ATR-72 aesthetically. I like that the fuselage sits on the main gear, rather than hanging the fuselage from the wings Dash-8 or Fokker style. it loses points aesthetically however for the large forward cargo door. It just shouldn't be there.
The British ATP was a good idea at the time as a replacement for the likewise British HS-748. Personally however I think the nose is too pointy (more of a beak than a nose cone) & the aft end of the fuselage is symmetrically tapered in to the centre, which makes it look a bit saggy in the bum. I don't know whether they are or not, but the engines look bigger & uglier & being a low-wing aircraft, it needed lankier landing gear to give the props the required ground clearance.
No such problems for the ATR. So far over 930 ATR-72's have been built & they're still building them. The ATP production line closed 20 years ago after just 64 we built.
All good answers above. As for which one, the ATR-72 is in my opinion the best value & most efficient of the larger turboprops in this game.
IRL, I like the ATR-72 aesthetically. I like that the fuselage sits on the main gear, rather than hanging the fuselage from the wings Dash-8 or Fokker style. it loses points aesthetically however for the large forward cargo door. It just shouldn't be there.
The British ATP was a good idea at the time as a replacement for the likewise British HS-748. Personally however I think the nose is too pointy (more of a beak than a nose cone) & the aft end of the fuselage is symmetrically tapered in to the centre, which makes it look a bit saggy in the bum. I don't know whether they are or not, but the engines look bigger & uglier & being a low-wing aircraft, it needed lankier landing gear to give the props the required ground clearance.
No such problems for the ATR. So far over 930 ATR-72's have been built & they're still building them. The ATP production line closed 20 years ago after just 64 we built.
I usually use the ATR for regional routes. It isn't as fast as the Q400 and isn't quite as efficient aircraft-for-aircraft, but with a fleet of ATRs I am able to meet demand more effectively by using a mix of -72's and -42's and achieve more efficiency overall due to lower costs.
All good answers above. As for which one, the ATR-72 is in my opinion the best value & most efficient of the larger turboprops in this game.
IRL, I like the ATR-72 aesthetically. I like that the fuselage sits on the main gear, rather than hanging the fuselage from the wings Dash-8 or Fokker style. it loses points aesthetically however for the large forward cargo door. It just shouldn't be there.
The British ATP was a good idea at the time as a replacement for the likewise British HS-748. Personally however I think the nose is too pointy (more of a beak than a nose cone) & the aft end of the fuselage is symmetrically tapered in to the centre, which makes it look a bit saggy in the bum. I don't know whether they are or not, but the engines look bigger & uglier & being a low-wing aircraft, it needed lankier landing gear to give the props the required ground clearance.
No such problems for the ATR. So far over 930 ATR-72's have been built & they're still building them. The ATP production line closed 20 years ago after just 64 we built.
That cargo door is just an option tho because some airlines tend to carry both freight and passengers.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
